According to Judge and Bono (2000: 751) there are many leadership theories that have caught the attention of leadership researchers but transformational leadership seems to have received the most amount of attention in leadership research. Gurr (2002) concurs with Judge and Bono (2000: 751) who maintain that transformational leadership has gained a high level of research focus and professional interest. Whilst Judge and Piccolo (2004)
47
contend that transformational leadership is recognised as an effective style of leadership, findings from Ayman, Korabik and Morris (2009: 874) show that transformational leadership may not be universally effective. Carmichael, Collins, Emsell and Haydon (2011: 127) further argue that there are theories of leadership other than transformational that are just as effective. Contrary to Carmichael et al (2011: 127) and Ayman et al (2009: 874), Bottery (2001: 199) maintains that although there are conflicting opinions on effectiveness in school leadership, transformational leadership is still the “most favoured” from most popular leadership theories. In fact Steph (2009: 3) claims that transformational leadership may be the answer to the many challenges facing schools.
Given the vast amount of attention that transformational leadership has received in educational leadership studies, there seems to remain a dearth of research pertaining to female leadership and its link to transformational leadership. Yet many researchers (for example Kark (2004: 163), Burke and Collins (2001), Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen (2003), Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001a), van Engen and Willemsen (2004) and Bass, Avolio and Atwater (1996: 30)) are of the opinion that female leaders are found to be highly transformational in their leadership styles. According to Gartzia, Ryan, Balluerka, and Aritzeta (2012: 603) this is synonymous with helpfulness, concern for subordinates, looking out for the interests of their subordinates, and being friendly. One of the weaknesses in many of the studies undertaken by Kark (2004: 163), Burke and Collins (2001), Eagly & Carli (2003a), Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt (2001a) van Engen and Willemsen (2004) and Bass et al (1996: 30) is that their studies relied too heavily on positivist quantitative analyses and failed to use qualitative research methods that explored and interpreted the feelings and perceptions of female leaders regarding transformational leadership. It appears from the theoretical review that research studies in South Africa are limited in the field of transformational leadership and female leadership. South Africa has a dire need to transform the leadership landscape post the so called ‘gender bias’ history of school leadership. This is reinforced by the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) (2007: 08) report which states that the apartheid government was neglectful and discriminatory to females, especially African females in the attainment of leadership positions.
According to Burns (1978), in transformational leadership the leader inspires those who are led to a vision that goes beyond their self- interest. On the one hand Carmichael et al (2011: 126) rebut this by arguing that although it is commendable for leaders to be inspirational, leadership must be evidence based and show solid facts. They further warn that as much as it is significant to inspire people, followers can run the risk of being inspired towards the unethical goals of the leaders. On the other hand they also suggest that evidence does support that if inspired, followers will “take the leap of faith.” Their literature would appear to
48
be over ambitious in its suggestion, as no attempt was made by the authors to provide any reliable evidence to substantiate their suggestions. The Centre for Leadership Studies (2000) reported that females were rated higher on three of the five transformational scales. In support of the findings from the report by the Centre for Leadership Studies (2000) is Manning’s (2002: 208) study that claims that transformational leadership is more inclined to a female style of leadership which, according to Eagly and Johnson (1990), entails characteristics that include being co-operative, nurturing, collaborative and helpful. Eagly and Johnson (1990) also agree with Manning (2002) when they state that women are more transformational in their approach by being less self-serving and more developmentally oriented. Although Carmichael et al (2011: 127) assert that leadership is not about style but rather about substance, they argue that how one says something is futile if one lacks adequate content. Kark (2004: 163), McHugh (1999), Manning (2002: 208) and The Centre for Leadership Studies (2000) all seem to agree that females are rated high with regards to using the transformational leadership approach. Kark (2004: 163) believes that females are perceived and perceive themselves to use transformational leadership more than men. Gurr (2002: 95) concurs with Kark (2004: 163) that females are perceived as being more transformational than males; however her study also reveals the converse to Kark’s (2004: 163) study that women see themselves as less transformational than men. On the other hand, Rosner’s (1995: 4) study found that the women respondents in her study do indeed perceive themselves to be “transformational leaders.” However, few writers have been able to draw on any systematic research into the opinions and attitudes of female leaders and their link to transformational leadership. In fact the empirical data in Manning’s (2002: 213) study is rather controversial, as there is no general agreement from his study about female claims of transformational leadership.
Research conducted by Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2007: 283) has revealed that some studies reviewed thus far show no conclusive evidence to state that females are highly transformational in their style of leadership. In fact Manning (2002: 213) maintains that men and women share equal claim to transformational leadership. The claim by Eagly and Carli’s (2003a) meta-analysis of 45 studies on transformational leaders which concluded that females are more transformational than male leaders, have also been subjected to considerable criticism. This is endorsed by Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2007: 283) who argue that reviews by researchers found that generalisations from leadership studies on male and female styles of leadership were weak and inconclusive as regards the female claim to transformational leadership. More recently, literature has emerged that offers contradictory findings about females as being transformational leaders. For example results from Ayman et al (2009: 85) show that the gender of the leader was not directly related to
49
transformational leadership while findings from Eagly and Carli’s (2003a) meta-analysis found women to be slightly more transformational than men.
According to Eagly and Carli (2003b) transformational leadership is more congenial for women as this is a communal style of leadership that is easier to deal with since there is “less leadership” role displayed. Cuadrado, Navas, Molero, Ferrer and Morales (2012: 3086) and Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001a: 787) concur with Eagly and Carli (2003b: 573) in that there is a communal dimension to female leadership style. Presumptuously this claim by Eagly and Carli (2003b) undoubtedly insinuates that females seem to favour a style of leadership that is supposedly a role of ‘less leadership.’ This is endorsed by Adam (2009) who asserts that women are seen as being “less assertive and more consultative” which projects the image of them not having the ability to make independent decisions and manage large organisations. Contrary to this, Adam (2009) still maintains that women firmly believe that although they share the leadership, they still have the ability to take the lead when necessary.
According to Eagly and Carli (2003a:825), transformational leadership is advantageous to females as it is line with their style of support and consideration as leaders. Adam (2009) does, however, argue that a female’s lack of assertion works to her disadvantage because she is seen as an ineffective leader. Vecchio (2002: 643) on the other hand warns that claims to a “gender advantage is overstated” as research methodologies are flawed. In this regard, Botha (2005: 42) suggests in her research, which she conducted in South Africa that transformational leadership is more in tune with the way females lead and is more acclimatised to the modern day needs of leadership. She therefore, asserts that more females should be appointed to leadership roles. However, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2007: 283) state that Botha’s (2005) ambitious assertions falls short as her study fails to provide reliable evidence to support such a claim. On the other hand, Bass et al (1996: 27) support Botha’s (2005: 42) suggestion that females tend to be more compatible to team leadership which is a strong characteristic of transformational leadership and a modern day leadership trait. Adam (2009) also supports Botha’s (2005: 42) claim that female educational leaders show strong transformational leadership characteristics. Ayman et al (2009: 853) maintains that effective leaders “create a transformation in both their subordinates and themselves.” Adam (2009) agrees with Ayman et al (2009: 853) when she advances that the female educational leader values autonomy and independence both for those being led and for herself. In fact, Eagly and Johnson (1990) further sanction Adam’s (2009) sentiments when they postulate that female leaders lay emphasis on supporting and developing those being led and themselves.
50
In as much as Judge and Piccolo (2004) maintain that transformational leadership is effective and Botha (2005: 42) suggests that women are more inclined to this type of leadership, transformational leadership has also presented many challenges to female leaders. The study by Ayman et al (2009: 853) found that gender bias impacts negatively on the way male subordinates evaluate female leaders that display transformational leadership. The study exposed that although females may show transformational leadership characteristics, females may not get the desired support from their male subordinates. It further highlights that even if women use a transformational style, they may be evaluated as less effective than their male counterparts who may use the same transformational style. This was sanctioned by the findings from Ayman et al (2009: 870) study claiming that women who considered themselves as transformational leaders were negatively evaluated by male subordinates. In this regard, Ayman et al (2009: 870) argues that transformational leadership did not work for women that had male subordinates. Nevertheless Bass et al (1996: 5) found that in their study both men and women subordinates claimed that females use transformational leadership more frequently than men. Their study further illustrated that the gender of the participants had no impact on the transformational rating they gave their leaders. Another challenge cited by Ayman et al (2009: 871) is that male subordinates are not receptive to female leaders who question their judgements to allow for their self- development. In fact, they mention that “women have no right to question the judgement of male subordinates.” Female subordinates however, were more receptive to mental stimulation and actually welcomed both her views and being questioned by the female leader.
According to Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001a: 787), individualised consideration for one’s followers in transformational leadership is more inclined to be a female way of leading. However, female leaders who overtly show this consideration may also be perceived as being “mothering” (Ayman et al 2009: 871). One of the well-known limitations in this study was the use of a small sample size that impeded on the generalisations of its conclusions. One of their research methods used by Ayman et al (2009: 854) was self-rating. Although they mention that there is value in measuring leadership behaviour using this approach, they fail to mention ‘what value.’ On the other hand, a major strength of the study is that it is one of the very few that emphasises the relationship and impact of the subordinate’s gender on their experience of the transformational leadership by female leaders. Nevertheless, the existing research (Ayman et al 2009 and Bass et al 1996) fails to answer the question as to whether or not the gender of subordinates plays a role in how they evaluate female transformational leaders.
51